The diskette file described in this specification applies primarily to 51/4 inch magnetic diskettes used on microcomputers. The most common method of storage of these diskettes is to use the original cardboard box in which the diskettes were purchased. Such filing method has several drawbacks. These drawbacks stem primarily from the delicate nature of the diskettes. The diskette is enclosed in a square sealed plastic container which has open slots to permite the reading and storing of data on the diskette. If human fingers touch the diskette through the open slots, the magnetic data stored on the diskette may be destroyed. An envelope is usually provided, but it is not always used and can be lost. Thus, the manipulation of the diskettee ought to be reduced to a minimum. The storage in the cardboard box requires that all the diskettes be taken out of the box in order to determine if the desired diskette is located in that box. Some of the boxes made of lightweight cardboard and can be crushed easily. When the box is made of sturdier cardboard, the cover is not secured to the box and the diskettes can fall out (especially if the box falls on the floor).
The second drawback of this method of storage is the large amount of time necessary to go through all the diskettes in the box to find a desired diskette.
Several methods of storing diskettes to avoid some the difficulties discussed in the previous paragraph, have been devised. Some of these methods have been patented. The most relevant patents are the following:
______________________________________ 1,173,388 2/1916 Rosenberg 3,924,742 12/1975 Primicerio 4,225,038 9/1980 Egly 4,231,474 11/1980 Takahoshi 4,325,595 4/1982 Solomon 4,369,879 1/1983 Egly et al. 4,375,263 3/1983 Dwarkin 4,396,119 8/1983 Guilie 4,479,577 10/1984 Eichner et al. 4,488,577 12/1984 Yawagchi ______________________________________
These methods differ significantly from the diskette file presented in this specification. They all use a box type storage which adequately solves the shortcomings of the fragility of the cardboard box, but they do not offer adequate safeguard from diskette manipulation and are therefor also time inefficient.
The box type of storage of diskettes does not resolve the problem of retrieval of a diskette from a file. The diskettes are arranged in an index-card fashion which requires flipping one diskette at a time in order to be able to read each diskette label until the desired diskette is reached. In addition, the envelopes are not secured inside the box and can therefore be lost or misplaced. Furthermore, the envelopes being lose, these methods do not, and can not, provide for a permanent assigned location for each diskette.
To facilitate the flipping of the diskettes, the front and back of the box are inclined, as in the Egly's storage box of 9/1980. Likewise, Guilie's storage box is "V" shaped for the same reason. Eichner's container relies on a pivoting inner construction to form a "V" configuration with the cover of the box. Dwarkin's compartments can be bended to form the "V" for flipping diskettes.
Egly's disk storage box of 1/1983 and Yawagchi's case are more secure receptacles than the 4 boxes discussed in the previous paragraph. But, in both instances the retrieval problem is aggravated by the necessity to take the diskettes out of the case. In addition, Egly's disk storage box of 1/1983 provides for very limited storage space: only a 2 or 3 diskettes can fit in the space provided.
In the box approach of diskette filing, the flipping may irritate the individual conducting the search and lead him/her to taking all the diskettes out of the container and fan them to see the labels more rapidly. In such instance the risk of damage to the diskette is aggravated. If the searcher chooses to flip the diskette conscientiously, a lot of time can be wasted.
In addition to the time inefficiency, the box approach is highly space inefficient. The need "V" for the file search imposes the need for additional devises (as in Eichner) or special shape (as in Guilie) which take space. This problem is especially serious when very large numbers of diskettes have to be stored. None of these methods would be ameanable to book-like method of storage of these devises on the shelves of a library.
The expandable folder type of file has been used for many different types of purposes. Some of these folder files have been patented. The most relevant patents in this context are the following:
______________________________________ 528,420 Estlow 10/1894 763,797 Rueve, Jr 6/1904 979,213 Shedd 12/1910 1,202,069 Kantro 10/1916 1,586,016 Walters 5/1926 2,416,816 Compagnano 3/1947 2,799,391 Eisner 7/1957 3,113,573 Schler 12/1963 4,313,558 Benham 3/1982 4,331,290 Benham 5/1982 ______________________________________
In addition, numerous patents have been issued for various configurations permitting to reveal the contents of a storage apparatus; for instance U.S. Pat. No. 3,154,125, 2,799,391, 2,431,472, and 3,850,083. The overall structures in these 4 inventions are not appropriate for storage of diskettes.
The diskette file of the present specification differs significantly from the structures of the folder type of files of the patents which are listed above. Benham's multiple pocket expandable envelopes of 2/1982 and 5/1982 are not suitable for the purpose of storing the diskettes so that they may be retrieved efficiently for at least 4 of the following reasons.
First, Benham's envelopes are not designed to allow the contents to be exposed because the cover is hinged at the hight of the envelopes in order to protect the contents; this requires the material inserted in the envelope not to exceed the hight of the envelope and would prevent a quick inspection of the nature of that material. Secondly, Benham's envelopes do not provide for a rigid closable covering case which would secure the diskette from possible crushing or spillage; instead, the entire structure is made of the same pliable material. Thirdly, the bottom of Benham's folder of 5/1982 is made of folding parts and is, therefor, not rigid; this would prevent the folder from opening in a fan-like fashion. Finally, Benham's envelopes are made of a complex cut-out single sheet assembly which is appropriate for a small number of pockets: it would be too cumbersome for a large number of dividers such as 20 or more.
Shedd's plaited binder and Schler's expandable folder also differ from the present diskette file by their folding flexible bottoms. In addition, their gusset construction is undesirable for storing diskettes because more than one diskette could then fit in a single pocket.
One type of multiple envelope receptacle which is akin to the diskette file is that of phonograph disk record album holder files. Several of these have been patented; most notably
______________________________________ 1,487,088 Casey 3/1924 1,499,712 Wilburger 7/1924 1,551,302 Gabel 8/1925 2,323,245 Schenker 6/1943 ______________________________________
Approximately 16 other patents have been issued for phonograph disk holders which basically consist of envelopes assembled as pages of a book-like file. The 4 patents cited above and the other 16 patents differ significantly from the diskette file presented in this specification.
First, the groves of phonograph disks, being exposed, require the disk holder design to provide for maximum protection by covering the disks in almost their entirety. The cut-outs permit the grasping of the disk or reading of the label located at the center. The microcomputer diskette is only vulnerable at its open slots located in the bottom half of the enclosing plastic container. Thus the diskette need not be covered in its entirety. On the contrary, it is imperative that the configuration of the file provides for the upper part of the diskette to be exposed allowing the reading of the label located there.
Because of the location of the label on the phonograph disks, the identification of the content of envelopes is accomplished by either inscription at the top of envelopes (as in Casey, Gabel and Schenker) or by allowing the central label to be shown (as in Wilburger). Such identification difficulties are not present for diskettes.
The combination of (1) shape of the envelopes (covering entire disk) and (2) method of identification, imposes, in turn, that almost all disk holders to be made of separate envelopes so that they can either (1) slide over each other to overlap (as in Cabel and Casey) or (2) be flipped (as in Wilburger). These envelopes are held together by only some form of attachment at the bottom extremety: with cardboard strips in Cabel and Casey or posts going through holes in wilburger. This method of attachment is considerably inferior in strength to that of the assemblage of envelopes of the diskette file (where each envelope is affixed to the next over its almost entire body). In Wilburger, the structure is further weakened by the needed spare space to allow flipping. The phonograph disk holder method also imposes the use of stronger and more costly materials for individual envelopes than is necessary for diskettes.
However, the major drawback of using phonograph disk holder type of files for diskettes is that of the difficulties that would be encountered in inserting diskettes in that type of file. A phonograph disk, being round with a smooth edge, can slide easily into a single envelope (in the Wilburger, Casey and Gabel structure) or in the slit (of the Schenker structure). Microcomputer diskettes, being enclosed in a square plastic container and the container having a minimum of 3 notches, would require a delicate, time consuming holding of the opening with one hand while sliding the diskette with the other. In spite of all the care, the notches would eventually catch on the edges of the slit (in Schenker structure) or envelope (in Wilburger, Casey and Gabel structures), and tear the sides. This problem is avoided in the diskette file by having the envelopes in a permanently open position (caused by the casing structure), which is further expanded when the entire assemblage is stretched, (which can be done with one hand). In addition, the extended back of each envelope in the diskette file guides the diskette into the envelope and avoids the possibility of notches catching on the edges of the envelopes and tearing them.
Lastly, the presence of posts in Wilburger construction does not interfere with a round phonograph record, but they would interfere with square diskettes.